Isn't The Long Sword Technically A Bastard Sword?

[PapaQuackers]

Yeah, I said it. If I can wield the long sword with 1 or 2 hands at my leisure, doesn't that make it a bastard sword?

I'm sickened that WoTC has lied to me like this.

[JAL_1138]

Yeah, I said it. If I can wield the long sword with 1 or 2 hands at my leisure, doesn't that make it a bastard sword?

I'm sickened that WoTC has lied to me like this.

Bastard sword is kind of a recent term. In some ways, so is longsword. They were typically just called "swords" in the middle ages and renaissance. The traditional late-medieval longsword is the same thing as a bastard sword, in that it could be used one-handed or two handed. There is no difference in that case. Some were essentially arming swords with long handles, some were sort of middle-ground between a two-handed-only sword and an arming sword, some were technically usable with one hand but better two-handed, and eventually swords that could only be used effectively two-handed became popular as shields fell further out of favor. You eventually got the big polearm-sized zweihander/montante type. "Long sword" could also refer to fighting with both hands at the hilt, with "short (or half) sword" referring to gripping the hilt with one hand and gripping the blade midway up with the other. At various times in certain fencing manuals, "long sword" could even refer to the rapier, contrasting it with shorter swords like the basket-hilt backsword.

[JackPhoenix]

Longsword and bastard sword are pretty much the same thing, though IRL longsword refers to a primarily two-handed weapon that could be used in one hand (i.e. what 3.5 calls bastard sword). D&D longsword doesn't exist.

[Cazero]

If you really, really thinks a distinction between them must be made, how about this :
Longsword : 1d8, slashing, finesse
Bastard sword : 1d8, slashing, versatile

Weapon tables are overrated. Seriously.

[Sneak Dog]

Actually, it's historically accurate that the naming scheme of swords is confusing and ambiguous. So this confusion you feel is entirely intentional and evokes the feeling that your character would have on the matter. This in turn creates greater roleplaying, as you and your character are more in tune with eachother.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_of_swords#Bastard_sword

However, by discovering the truth about it and even prodding me to reveal it to all of us here, you've ruined us as amazing roleplayers as we now actually know it doesn't matter, rather than that it is confusing. Good job.

:smalltongue:

[Segev]

If you really, really thinks a distinction between them must be made, how about this :
Longsword : 1d8, slashing, finesse
Bastard sword : 1d8, slashing, versatile

Weapon tables are overrated. Seriously.

I... don't think your last sentence follows logically from the rest of your post. "Weapon tables" are merely a way of presenting multiple different pre-made weapons in an organized fashion. :smallconfused:

[Plaguescarred]

If you define a bastard sword solely by its hand useness yes a longsword is versatile making it an hand-and-a-half sword.

But in previous editions like AD&D 2nd edition a longsword could also be used with two hands but still wasn't making it a bastard sword since they had different statistics.

[PapaQuackers]

Actually, it's historically accurate that the naming scheme of swords is confusing and ambiguous. So this confusion you feel is entirely intentional and evokes the feeling that your character would have on the matter. This in turn creates greater roleplaying, as you and your character are more in tune with eachother.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_of_swords#Bastard_sword

However, by discovering the truth about it and even prodding me to reveal it to all of us here, you've ruined us as amazing roleplayers as we now actually know it doesn't matter, rather than that it is confusing. Good job.

:smalltongue:

Wizard's machinations are truly powerful and all consuming.

[Segev]

Personally, I think it's disgraceful how we keep calling attention to it with such a disparaging epithet. The marital status of the sword's parents shouldn't matter, and is none of our business!

[Corsair14]

At least in the fighting arts, a bastard sword or German Longsword is a 4-5 foot blade with a grip and ricasso capable of both one and two handed use. This was unlike a standard sword which is one handed 2-3 feet long which was really only useful vs unarmored opponents or a short sword which historically was far more common due to ease of use with a shield and in formations. There was not a lot of actual military use of the German Longsword due to the prevalence of heavier plate armors(also why shields fell out of favor, they were not needed anymore when armor itself was so good you needed a heavy polearm to pierce it). It did develop its own martial art which evolved as a part of German grappling. It was also used in judicial dueling combats in the late middle ages. There are entire period books on German longsword technique and there are still martial arts societies and international tournaments to this day.

Also note that the pommel was an active part of the weapon being a large heavy steel weight and was used in smashing attacks.

If I were to make stats I would go 1d10 slashing, versatile

[nweismuller]

What older editions of D&D called the 'long sword' would probably just have been called a 'sword' during much of the Middle Ages, then an 'arming sword' after swords of that type had fallen out of favor as the primary weapon. A 'long sword' actually would be more of a hand and a half sword, as I understand it.

[Cazero]

I... don't think your last sentence follows logically from the rest of your post. "Weapon tables" are merely a way of presenting multiple different pre-made weapons in an organized fashion. :smallconfused:
You are factualy right. Nothing in my post actualy waranted that jab at something I consider poor design. Allow me to elaborate.
The best weapon table I ever saw was a list of creature sizes determining the amount of damage an appropriately sized weapon would deal and left the lethal/non-lethal nature of any given attack at the GM's discretion. A frying pan would deal just as much damage as a shortswort or a battleaxe and a bigger frying pan would naturally deal damage in par with bigger battleaxes. It wouldn't be out of place for D&D; in fact, I believe that it would even be better than the current weapon table we have that strongly incentives against specific weapons for no apparent reason, punishes players for cosmetic choices and make improvised weapons a joke and/or a feat tax. And that line of argumentation hold surprisingly well regardless of edition.

[Segev]

You are factualy right. Nothing in my post actualy waranted that jab at something I consider poor design. Allow me to elaborate.
The best weapon table I ever saw was a list of creature sizes determining the amount of damage an appropriately sized weapon would deal and left the lethal/non-lethal nature of any given attack at the GM's discretion. A frying pan would deal just as much damage as a shortswort or a battleaxe and a bigger frying pan would naturally deal damage in par with bigger battleaxes. It wouldn't be out of place for D&D; in fact, I believe that it would even be better than the current weapon table we have that strongly incentives against specific weapons for no apparent reason, punishes players for cosmetic choices and make improvised weapons a joke and/or a feat tax. And that line of argumentation hold surprisingly well regardless of edition.

Fair enough. If you want weapons to be pure fluff choices and have damage be purely based on the creature's size, that's acceptable.

I do think D&D has typically not used weapon tables as well as it could. They simultaneously try to give differences to make each weapon different, and fail to make the differences matter (or worse, make weapons which are more expensive be inferior or literally mechanically identical to some which cost less). But I do think that having differentiated weapons can be useful.

[ZX6Rob]

Fair enough. If you want weapons to be pure fluff choices and have damage be purely based on the creature's size, that's acceptable.

I do think D&D has typically not used weapon tables as well as it could. They simultaneously try to give differences to make each weapon different, and fail to make the differences matter (or worse, make weapons which are more expensive be inferior or literally mechanically identical to some which cost less). But I do think that having differentiated weapons can be useful.

Well, there's probably a little bit of a middle ground between "All weapons do 1d6 damage for medium critters, just use what you like," and "Now, let's talk about how weapon speed factor can modify initiative and how specific weapons modify their attack rolls based on their type, subtype, and the armor used by the enemy you are attacking. If you'll refer to table 3-B.26..."

I agree with you, some variation is good, but I think when you're developing, it's easy to let things get too complicated.

[Cazero]

Well, there's probably a little bit of a middle ground between "All weapons do 1d6 damage for medium critters, just use what you like," and "Now, let's talk about how weapon speed factor can modify initiative and how specific weapons modify their attack rolls based on their type, subtype, and the armor used by the enemy you are attacking. If you'll refer to table 3-B.26..."

My point is that D&D default weapon tables usualy do a bad job at implementing diversity in weapons. Not that diversity or even complexity is inherently problematic.
After all, I liked the way Pillars of Eternity gave every weapon type an unique combination of properties making it different from the others. And if you like having to switch between glaive, guisarme, pike, bohemian earspoon and glaive-guisarme based on wich culture manufactured chainmail for these specific orcs, who am I to stop you?

[N810]

I would call this a bustard sword,
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/b9/98/cc/b998cccf3e4ff5efd753a9e69d33feab.jpg
and this a long sword.
http://www.kultofathena.com/images%5CCS88ITSM_4_l.jpg

Notice the different hand grip.

[Sabeta]

Pikes, Spears, Javelins, and several others were all considered the same weapon (Spear) until Historians needed a way to tell them apart in conversation. The "technical" name of a sword doesn't matter so much as long as you and everyone else knows what you're talking about.

[Segev]

I prefer daiklaives, myself.

*ducks and runs*

[Laserlight]

I prefer daiklaives, myself.

*ducks and runs*

Not THAT long a sword.

I'd rather have "1d6 weapon, such as one handed axe, mace, hammer" and let the players decide whether they want that to be a morningstar, a stone headed club, or whatever.

[Arial Black]

So if my half-elf is over six feet tall, does that make him a hand-and-a-half-elf....?

....or a bastard elf...?

[JumboWheat01]

If only you knew how dirty that sounds, Arial Black.

I wonder why they got rid of the Bastard Sword this edition. Helm and Kelemvor must be rather miffed.

[Segev]

If only you knew how dirty that sounds, Arial Black.

I wonder why they got rid of the Bastard Sword this edition. Helm and Kelemvor must be rather miffed.

Nah, they just finally got married, so their sword-progeny are legitimate.

[Sigreid]

So one article I read on swords a few years ago identified bastard swords as describing a two handed sword that had been damaged to the point it was cut down to a shorter blade but still had the two handed hilt. All the varying accounts tells me that the sword names and classifications are really pretty arbitrary.

[GorinichSerpant]

So if my half-elf is over six feet tall, does that make him a hand-and-a-half-elf....?

....or a bastard elf...?

I believe that common wisdom states that all elves are bastards, therefor the later.

[CaptainSarathai]

So if my half-elf is over six feet tall, does that make him a hand-and-a-half-elf....?

....or a bastard elf...?
The real question is: does having 2 human parents make you a "Human-and-a-half Elf"?


So one article I read on swords a few years ago identified bastard swords as describing a two handed sword that had been damaged to the point it was cut down to a shorter blade but still had the two handed hilt. All the varying accounts tells me that the sword names and classifications are really pretty arbitrary.

This is also where I've heard the term originating, although it was later solidified when they began producing the blade-length intentionally. Basically a "longsword" handle, with a side-sword length blade.
--

There's a lot wrong with the weapon/armor tables from D&D. For example, the "light armor" table would have any historian rolling in their graves.
Not to mention that plate armor should render most weapons totally useless.

[Malifice]

Yeah, I said it. If I can wield the long sword with 1 or 2 hands at my leisure, doesn't that make it a bastard sword?

I'm sickened that WoTC has lied to me like this.

I dont want to rock your world too much, but 5E is the first edition of the game that gets it right.

The Longsword was a hand and a half sword (watch LoTR - Aragorns sword Anduril/ Narsil is a Longsword). They were designed to be used primarily two handed, but could also be weilded with the one handed with a shield.

The sword you probably imagine as a 'longsword' is in fact an Arming sword. A one handed sidearm commonly carried as a back up weapon by warriors.

5e is actually the first version to get it right. Google it if you dont believe me.

[Safety Sword]

Any sword that hits you would be a bastard of a sword... what... same thing, right?

[Corsair14]

Using a fantasy weapon to back up facts isn't really effective.
Short sword <3"
Longsword/Arming sword 3-4" used one handed.
German Longsword/Shlagger(sp?)/Bastard/hand and a half 4-6" Fairly late period weapon, more ceremonial and used for tournaments than actual combat.
2 handed/claymore/Flammburge(sp?) 6"+ Variety of uses. Flmmy was used in between pike formations to sever enemy formation pike heads. These guys were paid double a pikeman's pay, but commanders were confident they would never live to collect it. Regular claymores and such were used to crack heavy armor, more from blunt force than actual cutting.

[Willie the Duck]

Names do not matter. All of this goes right out the window once we stop speaking in English anyways, and most cultures that have been using swords weren't using the term bastard sword, long sword or longsword.

There do exist in reality a continuum of swords from those that are too small to get any benefit from being used two-handed, through those that can be used one handed or two handed, up to those that can't reasonably be used without two hands. There aren't clear boundaries (to the blade anyways, you can always put a clearly one-handed grip on a sword to enforce a specific fighting style), and there shouldn't be.

As to D&D, within this current system there is not a space between what is listed as long sword and what is listed as great sword to fit bastard sword (without either short-changing one or the other). That's all there is to it. Why overcomplicate it?

[Corsair14]

What we really need is a Falx. The weapon that forced the Romans to up-armor. Love to see someone stat that one as the can opening, arm, shield and helm cleaver that it was.

[LordVonDerp]

Yeah, I said it. If I can wield the long sword with 1 or 2 hands at my leisure, doesn't that make it a bastard sword?

I'm sickened that WoTC has lied to me like this.

At least they stopped claiming a bastard sword was longer than a LONG sword.

But yeah, a bastard sword is the bastard sword of a normal sword and a long sword.

[Segev]

At least they stopped claiming a bastard sword was longer than a LONG sword.

But yeah, a bastard sword is the bastard sword of a normal sword and a long sword.

3.5, at least, had the "long sword" as the "normal" sword, if any of them qualified. The short sword was the rogue's weapon, and the Bastard Sword was a hybrid of the long sword and the great sword.

[GlenSmash!]

I dont want to rock your world too much, but 5E is the first edition of the game that gets it right.

The Longsword was a hand and a half sword (watch LoTR - Aragorns sword Anduril/ Narsil is a Longsword). They were designed to be used primarily two handed, but could also be weilded with the one handed with a shield.

The sword you probably imagine as a 'longsword' is in fact an Arming sword. A one handed sidearm commonly carried as a back up weapon by warriors.

5e is actually the first version to get it right. Google it if you dont believe me.

Have you seen the Weapons Table in Adventures in Middle Earth. The Longsword is unchanged, but the Broadsword is now an option. 1d8, Slashing, Finesse, not Versatile. I think it well suits the Arming Sword.

[Malifice]

Have you seen the Weapons Table in Adventures in Middle Earth. The Longsword is unchanged, but the Broadsword is now an option. 1d8, Slashing, Finesse, not Versatile. I think it well suits the Arming Sword.

Yeah, guess so.

I dont see a real need to make any difference. A falcata, kopesh, longsword, katana, whatever.

Heck I dont care if my players want to refluff their weapon as whatever they want to call it.

For completeness:

Longsword:

https://www.thehemashop.com/media/catalog/product/1/2/120253_2_.png

Arming sword:

https://www.thehemashop.com/media/catalog/product/cache/3/image/650x/a23c5612020deea9b22e12a72f0463fe/r/d/rda002_1.png